Preventive detention and effective representation: failure to supply relied upon material in the detenu's language vitiates detention.

A writ petition challenging preventive detention was maintainable before the Delhi High Court because an earlier Kerala dismissal had been in limine without adjudicating the detention order, and the representation on continued detention had been decided in Delhi. The detention order was held unsustainable because the detenu, who understood only Malayalam, was supplied relied upon documents only in English, preventing an effective representation under Article 22(5). Strict compliance with the constitutional safeguard was required, and the mechanical rejection of the representation did not cure the defect. The detention order was quashed and release directed unless wanted in another case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the earlier dismissal by the High Court of Kerala and whether the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction; (ii) Whether failure to supply the relied upon documents in the language understood by the detenu violated Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the earlier dismissal by the High Court of Kerala and whether the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: The earlier petition had been dismissed in limine without any adjudication on the validity of the detention order, as the detenu was not then in custody. The present challenge arose after detention pursuant to the order. On jurisdiction, the detention order had been passed in Kerala, but the representation against continued detention was decided at Delhi, which gave the Delhi High Court jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the writ petition was held maintainable before the Delhi High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to supply the relied upon documents in the language understood by the detenu violated Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The detenu consistently asserted that he understood only Malayalam, yet a large number of relied upon documents were supplied only in English. The rejection of his representation was mechanical and did not address this grievance. In preventive detention matters, the constitutional requirement is strict compliance, and the right to make an effective and purposeful representation cannot be treated as satisfied when the detenu is deprived of understanding the material against him.

Conclusion: The non-supply of documents in the language understood by the detenu violated Article 22(5) and rendered the detention order unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was quashed because the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) had not been complied with, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, relied upon material must be supplied in a form enabling an effective representation, and strict compliance with Article 22(5) is mandatory; prejudice is not the governing test where this constitutional safeguard is violated.

---